2013 SSA Convention

In 2011 we conducted a formal survey for the SSA on the Convention –

From a total of 351 respondents (which is statistically significant for the soaring community):

55.2% preferred a convention every two years
40.8% preferred every year
2.9% every three years
1.1% every four years

Most commonly cited reason for an every other year convention was that not enough changes for an every year event… the exhibits and presentation sessions are repetitious.

Concerning a scaled down “off-year” event with no exhibits:

29% were interested or very interested
71% ranged from somewhat interested to not interested

Bob

On 12/22/2012 4:00 PM, RL wrote:
In 2011 we conducted a formal survey for the SSA on the Convention –

From a total of 351 respondents (which is statistically significant for the
soaring community):

55.2% preferred a convention every two years 40.8% preferred every year
2.9% every three years 1.1% every four years

Most commonly cited reason for an every other year convention was that not
enough changes for an every year event… the exhibits and presentation
sessions are repetitious.

Concerning a scaled down “off-year” event with no exhibits:

29% were interested or very interested 71% ranged from somewhat interested
to not interested

I *knew* someone would inevitably bring facts into this thread. (Curse you
FactMan!)

But seriously, I remember (and took) that survey. I was also dismayed at the
results, statistically valid though they were. I voted for annual conventions,
despite - or maybe because of - having gone to only two, beginning with the
'90s Portland convention. IMO, kinda like XC soaring, more options are good!

Opening myself to charges of whining after the fact, I seem to remember
something that bothered me at the time about the survey and how it was likely
to be used. It was this:

If I accepted as fact that - as has been presented both on RAS and in
"Soaring" magazine - conventions were not a money loser for SSA, then why
would SSA NOT want it as an annual event? In other words, so long as an annual
convention remained an attractive (to some/"enough") members - which means of
course that it also remained sufficiently worthwhile to be supported by
"enough" commercial vendors, track presenters, etc. - to *remain* commercially
viable, why not have continued down a working path? Why the need to "compel"
formal democracy via ballot (vs. some other method)? So what if the majority
of SSA members would not (and never did!) attend the convention in any given
year? Those that did benefited, SSA benefited, presumably most vendors
benefited, etc...

Oh well, at least in my hemisphere day lengths are again increasing...

Bob W.